Researchers from NATO's communications agency ask when a blockchain actually helps a military alliance, and propose one concrete use: binding labels to data.
The NATO paper's two-part test
A paper that argues against hype
Most blockchain stories are written by enthusiasts. This 2018 conference paper, by authors from the NATO Communications and Information Agency and the Military University of Technology in Warsaw, starts from scepticism and asks what advantage a distributed ledger offers within NATO operations. That makes it a good model of how to evaluate any technology.
The authors also correct a common misunderstanding. A distributed ledger is not simply a database with extra steps. In a database, a transaction is processed once; in a ledger, every node must validate each transaction itself, run consensus and hold the full current state. That duplication is the cost of removing a central authority, and it is only worth paying when you need to.
The two-part test
A blockchain makes sense, they argue, when (1) several parties who do not trust each other need to record or change shared state, and (2) those parties either cannot agree on a common online trusted third party or cannot deploy one.
In NATO’s everyday peacetime and national operations, condition 1 usually fails, because there are existing trust arrangements. Logistics, supply chain, payments and proof of ownership are the most commonly proposed military uses, but the authors find that in well-defined organisations the advantage over conventional methods is not evident, and that overhead, such as the electricity used by proof-of-work systems, may make things worse.
Where it could help: federated missions
The picture changes in federated mission operations. These bring in partners who are not covered by existing trust arrangements: new non-NATO countries joining at short notice, humanitarian organisations that do not want to be seen as NATO associates, or local groups that distrust the alliance. A shared ledger can provide an enrolment mechanism and a neutral record where a traditional public key infrastructure would require a trusted authority everyone accepts.
A second case is when the technical means for a trusted third party do not exist or have been destroyed. Here a ledger could register contracts and commitments in logistics, and cryptocurrencies could offer a safer alternative to cash when the banking system is down.
The authors add caveats. A blockchain is not a universal answer to a lack of infrastructure, because some infrastructure must exist to add and validate entries, and participants need basic ICT skills. They see ledgers as an extra, context-specific function rather than a replacement for existing systems.
The concrete proposal: binding metadata to data
NATO standards require data to carry metadata labels, such as classification, that must be cryptographically bound to the data they describe. Standards numbered STANAG 4774 and 4778 govern the labels and the binding. The paper proposes a blockchain-based detached binding mechanism, in which the label is stored separately and a tamper-evident ledger entry ties it to the data, so recipients can check the label has not been altered or swapped.
To choose a platform, the authors compare existing ledgers on whether they are public or private, permissioned, their consensus mechanism, cost and smart-contract support. They conclude that Multichain and Hyperledger offer the most promising options, and begin a proof of concept to test usability and performance in operational-like conditions. A future idea they flag is managing trust and identity for IoT devices deployed in theatre by coalition members.
Why it matters beyond defence
The test applies to every sector. Before asking what blockchain can do, ask who needs to share data, whether they trust each other and whether a trusted intermediary is available. If a bank, regulator or cloud provider can serve as that neutral party, you may not need a ledger. Our UK report summary and Stellar consensus articles show how different designs handle the same trust problem.
Sources
- Does NATO Need a Blockchain?. Konrad Wrona and Michal Jarosz, 2018 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), 2018.
This article is our own summary and commentary. The reports remain the property of their authors and publishers; read the originals for full detail. Spotted an error? Tell us. See our editorial policy.